The article compares, on the issues of religious symbols in public space, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and that of the US Supreme Court. The enquiry aims at outlining a comparison between the contents of the decisions, not between the Courts: one is a constitutional court, the other an international court which in the late decades has been a breakthrough in the European system of guarantees. The main points emerged through the comparison are: first of all, the European Court, unlike the US SC, is clearly engaged in building a European secularism that leaves religious symbols outside the public space. The Strasbourg Court adopts a conception of secularism which, in principle, is very different from American secularism. Secondly, although in different ways, both Courts employ arguments based on tradition and history, to the detriment of individual and minority interests. Thirdly, there is a certain deference towards the choices made by national authorities: for the critics of the Roberts Court, this attitude deserves to be stigmatized in a constitutional jurisdiction.

Imperfect Simmetry. The Court of Strasbourg and the US Supreme Court on religious symbols in public spaces / Diletta Tega. - ELETTRONICO. - (2016), pp. e1-e20.

Imperfect Simmetry. The Court of Strasbourg and the US Supreme Court on religious symbols in public spaces

TEGA, DILETTA
2016

Abstract

The article compares, on the issues of religious symbols in public space, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and that of the US Supreme Court. The enquiry aims at outlining a comparison between the contents of the decisions, not between the Courts: one is a constitutional court, the other an international court which in the late decades has been a breakthrough in the European system of guarantees. The main points emerged through the comparison are: first of all, the European Court, unlike the US SC, is clearly engaged in building a European secularism that leaves religious symbols outside the public space. The Strasbourg Court adopts a conception of secularism which, in principle, is very different from American secularism. Secondly, although in different ways, both Courts employ arguments based on tradition and history, to the detriment of individual and minority interests. Thirdly, there is a certain deference towards the choices made by national authorities: for the critics of the Roberts Court, this attitude deserves to be stigmatized in a constitutional jurisdiction.
2016
RSCAS 2016/08. RELIGIOWEST
e1
e20
Imperfect Simmetry. The Court of Strasbourg and the US Supreme Court on religious symbols in public spaces / Diletta Tega. - ELETTRONICO. - (2016), pp. e1-e20.
Diletta Tega
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/547700
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact